I don't think there's any evidence of a 'cooling' between Moscow and the OCA, though I think the former got caught off-guard by the dysfunction of Metropolitan Jonah's relationship with the Holy Synod. By all accounts, Moscow was closely advising His Beatitude, and in so doing wasn't getting the entire picture. That was why Metropolitan Hilarion of the DECR had to several trips here.

The 'possible liturgical snubs', Ft. Ross, etc. largely had to do with the chaos of the situation. Nobody was entirely sure what's going on. All indications are that Moscow is still unaware of His Beatitude's retention of an attorney and the possibility of legal action by Metropolitan Jonah that such a retainer implies.

The truth is that Metropolitan Jonah had an, administratively-speaking, 'ham-handed' approach. He admitted as much in his resignation, which made the transition all the more clumbsy. This was also revealed in his musings about the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Tomos of Autocephaly, both of which led to a great deal of confusion.

It may be, but probably also references some of the cooling of relations between the OCA and MP. There have been a couple of signals of displeasure sent by Moscow prior ("possible liturgical snub in Kiev (I think), "candid" discussion/chewing out with the MP, the changing of the celebration in reference to the OCA at Fr. Ross) and at least one snub on the OCA's part afterwards of a visiting MP delegation ("we're an autonomous church").

Regardless of the need to ask Met. Jonah step down, the handling of it has been very ham handed (as evidenced by the strong feelings it has generated for and against in the OCA), and that has had far reaching repercussions…and the ripples are still out there.

FatherGiryus, your read on the situation is very wrong.

Metropolitan Jonah is not even remotely responsible for the egregious mishandling of this situation by the OCA hierarchy and administration.

Moscow has not been caught off-guard, snowed, or made in any way less than fully aware of what has gone on.

I don't think there's any evidence of a 'cooling' between Moscow and the OCA, though I think the former got caught off-guard by the dysfunction of Metropolitan Jonah's relationship with the Holy Synod. By all accounts, Moscow was closely advising His Beatitude, and in so doing wasn't getting the entire picture. That was why Metropolitan Hilarion of the DECR had to several trips here.

The 'possible liturgical snubs', Ft. Ross, etc. largely had to do with the chaos of the situation. Nobody was entirely sure what's going on. All indications are that Moscow is still unaware of His Beatitude's retention of an attorney and the possibility of legal action by Metropolitan Jonah that such a retainer implies.

The truth is that Metropolitan Jonah had an, administratively-speaking, 'ham-handed' approach. He admitted as much in his resignation, which made the transition all the more clumbsy. This was also revealed in his musings about the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Tomos of Autocephaly, both of which led to a great deal of confusion.

It may be, but probably also references some of the cooling of relations between the OCA and MP. There have been a couple of signals of displeasure sent by Moscow prior ("possible liturgical snub in Kiev (I think), "candid" discussion/chewing out with the MP, the changing of the celebration in reference to the OCA at Fr. Ross) and at least one snub on the OCA's part afterwards of a visiting MP delegation ("we're an autonomous church").

Regardless of the need to ask Met. Jonah step down, the handling of it has been very ham handed (as evidenced by the strong feelings it has generated for and against in the OCA), and that has had far reaching repercussions…and the ripples are still out there.

FatherGiryus, your read on the situation is very wrong.

Metropolitan Jonah is not even remotely responsible for the egregious mishandling of this situation by the OCA hierarchy and administration.

Moscow has not been caught off-guard, snowed, or made in any way less than fully aware of what has gone on.

Orual, and do you have any sources (nothing referenced on that website that starts with an 'M' counts) that counter Fr. Giryus's statement? I am on the parish council of my parish, in the DoW, have known Met. Jonah since the mid-90's as well has many at my parish, and none are shocked at the resignation. We have heard of his shortcomings for two years now (ever since they started to be problematic). Those of us who have known Met. Jonah for many years love him dearly and wish him well, but realize that he was not the man for the job and had serious shortcomings. Think of this: he was a bishop for ELEVEN DAYS before elected Metropolitan, when his prior administrative experience was only for a few small mission parishes and a men's monastery. I hear that his administrative style as an Abbot was difficult to deal with back then. To think that he was in way over his head isn't exactly implausible. All this talk of "taking care of Met. Jonah financially"? He is a monk! He's not supposed to have financial needs! And taking care of his own family financially? Well how did they survive before he was Metropolitan only 4 years ago?

I know a priest I have known my whole life who was laicized, I think for an inappropriate situation with a woman that was not his wife. From what little I have heard, it seemed like it could have been more accusation than substance, but I have to trust that his bishop did the right thing and it was in the best interests for his Salvation. I'm rather saddened by the Met. JONAH situation, but trust the Synod that the decision was the best for the Church as well. The biggest issue I have is the release of the (to quote retired Bp. TIKHON) "STINKBOMB" letter - I seriously question the need to release that letter and think it should not have been. Certain situations regarding his resignation could have been handled much better.

From the point of view of non-OCA folks, I would agree with Fr. G. here. The statements which Met. Jonah made regarding the Ecumenical Patriarchate were out of the norm even among the usually fractious band of Orthodoxy Bishop brothers' behavior towards each other. I think that Moscow is hoping that the OCA can obtain a more meaningful role in the EA process, its subcommittees etc... under 'new' management.

I don't think there's any evidence of a 'cooling' between Moscow and the OCA, though I think the former got caught off-guard by the dysfunction of Metropolitan Jonah's relationship with the Holy Synod. By all accounts, Moscow was closely advising His Beatitude, and in so doing wasn't getting the entire picture. That was why Metropolitan Hilarion of the DECR had to several trips here.

The 'possible liturgical snubs', Ft. Ross, etc. largely had to do with the chaos of the situation. Nobody was entirely sure what's going on. All indications are that Moscow is still unaware of His Beatitude's retention of an attorney and the possibility of legal action by Metropolitan Jonah that such a retainer implies.

The truth is that Metropolitan Jonah had an, administratively-speaking, 'ham-handed' approach. He admitted as much in his resignation, which made the transition all the more clumbsy. This was also revealed in his musings about the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Tomos of Autocephaly, both of which led to a great deal of confusion.

It may be, but probably also references some of the cooling of relations between the OCA and MP. There have been a couple of signals of displeasure sent by Moscow prior ("possible liturgical snub in Kiev (I think), "candid" discussion/chewing out with the MP, the changing of the celebration in reference to the OCA at Fr. Ross) and at least one snub on the OCA's part afterwards of a visiting MP delegation ("we're an autonomous church").

Regardless of the need to ask Met. Jonah step down, the handling of it has been very ham handed (as evidenced by the strong feelings it has generated for and against in the OCA), and that has had far reaching repercussions…and the ripples are still out there.

FatherGiryus, your read on the situation is very wrong.

Metropolitan Jonah is not even remotely responsible for the egregious mishandling of this situation by the OCA hierarchy and administration.

Moscow has not been caught off-guard, snowed, or made in any way less than fully aware of what has gone on.

Orual, and do you have any sources (nothing referenced on that website that starts with an 'M' counts) that counter Fr. Giryus's statement?

LOL. You take Fr. Giryus at his word, but demand sources from me? I am just relating the facts as I see them.

Fr. Giryus is the one who cannot justify what he is saying: Metr. Jonah could not have had anything to do with how the OCA (mis)handled this, because he's been powerless over it since July.

Quote

I am on the parish council of my parish, in the DoW, have known Met. Jonah since the mid-90's as well has many at my parish, and none are shocked at the resignation. We have heard of his shortcomings for two years now (ever since they started to be problematic). Those of us who have known Met. Jonah for many years love him dearly and wish him well, but realize that he was not the man for the job and had serious shortcomings.

Think of this: he was a bishop for ELEVEN DAYS before elected Metropolitan, when his prior administrative experience was only for a few small mission parishes and a men's monastery. I hear that his administrative style as an Abbot was difficult to deal with back then. To think that he was in way over his head isn't exactly implausible.

And whose fault is that? Bishop Jonah couldn't even vote in the election that made him Metropolitan.

Quote

All this talk of "taking care of Met. Jonah financially"? He is a monk! He's not supposed to have financial needs! And taking care of his own family financially? Well how did they survive before he was Metropolitan only 4 years ago?

This alone tells me you don't have a clue about Metropolitan Jonah's personal situation and don't care about what happens to him. That's also very unfair to his parents, who have done nothing to deserve having their lives opened up and questioned.

This is the attitude I don't understand: it's Metropolitan Jonah's fault he was elected, it's Metropolitan Jonah's fault he supports his parents, it's Metropolitan Jonah's fault the group of people who rejected him handled it in a bad way, it's Metropolitan Jonah's fault the polar ice caps are melting.

Quote

I know a priest I have known my whole life who was laicized, I think for an inappropriate situation with a woman that was not his wife. From what little I have heard, it seemed like it could have been more accusation than substance, but I have to trust that his bishop did the right thing and it was in the best interests for his Salvation.

And one time I went to the pet store, and Mom let me hold the cutest little bunny rabbit. What's your point?

Quote

I'm rather saddened by the Met. JONAH situation, but trust the Synod that the decision was the best for the Church as well. The biggest issue I have is the release of the (to quote retired Bp. TIKHON) "STINKBOMB" letter - I seriously question the need to release that letter and think it should not have been. Certain situations regarding his resignation could have been handled much better.

If the OCA bishops want to earn back my trust, they have a ways to go.

Logged

He spoke it as kindly and heartily as could be; as if a man dashed a gallon of cold water in your broth and never doubted you'd like it all the better.

This is the attitude I don't understand: it's Metropolitan Jonah's fault he was elected, it's Metropolitan Jonah's fault he supports his parents, it's Metropolitan Jonah's fault the group of people who rejected him handled it in a bad way, it's Metropolitan Jonah's fault the polar ice caps are melting.

I don't think there's any evidence of a 'cooling' between Moscow and the OCA, though I think the former got caught off-guard by the dysfunction of Metropolitan Jonah's relationship with the Holy Synod. By all accounts, Moscow was closely advising His Beatitude, and in so doing wasn't getting the entire picture. That was why Metropolitan Hilarion of the DECR had to several trips here.

The 'possible liturgical snubs', Ft. Ross, etc. largely had to do with the chaos of the situation. Nobody was entirely sure what's going on. All indications are that Moscow is still unaware of His Beatitude's retention of an attorney and the possibility of legal action by Metropolitan Jonah that such a retainer implies.

The truth is that Metropolitan Jonah had an, administratively-speaking, 'ham-handed' approach. He admitted as much in his resignation, which made the transition all the more clumbsy. This was also revealed in his musings about the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Tomos of Autocephaly, both of which led to a great deal of confusion.

It may be, but probably also references some of the cooling of relations between the OCA and MP. There have been a couple of signals of displeasure sent by Moscow prior ("possible liturgical snub in Kiev (I think), "candid" discussion/chewing out with the MP, the changing of the celebration in reference to the OCA at Fr. Ross) and at least one snub on the OCA's part afterwards of a visiting MP delegation ("we're an autonomous church").

Regardless of the need to ask Met. Jonah step down, the handling of it has been very ham handed (as evidenced by the strong feelings it has generated for and against in the OCA), and that has had far reaching repercussions…and the ripples are still out there.

FatherGiryus, your read on the situation is very wrong.

Metropolitan Jonah is not even remotely responsible for the egregious mishandling of this situation by the OCA hierarchy and administration.

Moscow has not been caught off-guard, snowed, or made in any way less than fully aware of what has gone on.

Orual, and do you have any sources (nothing referenced on that website that starts with an 'M' counts) that counter Fr. Giryus's statement?

LOL. You take Fr. Giryus at his word, but demand sources from me? I am just relating the facts as I see them.

ISTM that Elisha doesn't question Fr. Giryus's sources because his own first-hand experiences have verified them to be true. I think Elisha could very well ask you if you have any sources that counter his own personal experience of what happened between +Jonah and the Synod.

I am on the parish council of my parish, in the DoW, have known Met. Jonah since the mid-90's as well has many at my parish, and none are shocked at the resignation. We have heard of his shortcomings for two years now (ever since they started to be problematic). Those of us who have known Met. Jonah for many years love him dearly and wish him well, but realize that he was not the man for the job and had serious shortcomings.

Think of this: he was a bishop for ELEVEN DAYS before elected Metropolitan, when his prior administrative experience was only for a few small mission parishes and a men's monastery. I hear that his administrative style as an Abbot was difficult to deal with back then. To think that he was in way over his head isn't exactly implausible.

And whose fault is that? Bishop Jonah couldn't even vote in the election that made him Metropolitan.

That's not relevant to Elisha's point about +Jonah's administrative style.